VH1 s**ts on The Beach Boys

[Ron]

I like Oasis and Nirvana, neither belong in the top 15 though. 

I'd probably do more like

1. Frank Sinatra
2. The Beatles
3. Elvis Pressley
4. Michael Jackson
5. The Beach Boys

if I was going to do a list. My favorites are the Beach Boys, but as far as influence, talent, star power, exitement level, popularity, etc. I'd say that list is about right.  Sinatra at the top for many, many reasons.  I'm not a huge fan but his complete dominance of everything he ever attempted puts him at the top in my opinion.  He did it his way, musically, for like 60 years.  That shits on everybody.  Michael Jackson is so high because of his incredible talent but also because of his longevity.  I believe actually he and the Beach Boys share a similar statistic, Michael had a #1 hit when he was about 12 or so with "Ben", then had a #1 hit in his 40's, 30 years or so later.  The Beach Boys had a #1 hit with I Get Around in 64 or 65, then again with Kokomo in the late 80's, that's pretty rare to have #1 hits 20 years apart.  I think Sinatra may have done the same, though.  I don't know if "Free as a Bird" pulled it off.  Elvis probably did it as well.  Michael though has got to have the record, anybody else with more years of #1's? 

[Mr. Cohen]

No way, that list needs an influx of newer talent. If you're going to put Presley on there, might as well add Madonna, too.

[A Million Units In Jan!]

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

Right on! I felt the same way when I read it. Especially the bit about Mike blowing himself away with a shotgun.
It's funny how upset people get over this kind of stuff. It's just somebody's opinion, it isn't like VH1 is the be-all end-all. Get a grip, people. Cripes.

[Ron]

Madonna isn't on any of those 5's level, imho.  I looked up the Statistic on Michael too, Ben was #1 in 1972, "You are not alone" was #1 in 1995.  So that's only 23 years.  Kokomo may have beat that stretch. 

[Myk Luhv]

I like how the list doesn't seem to include Chuck Berry at all...

[drbeachboy]

@Ron

That list looks just about right, to me. I might switch Elvis with the Beatles, but definitely those 5 make my list.

[Mike's Beard]

But, but ,but, but they're behind Nirvana?  WTF?  Maybe if Mike had blasted himself in the head with a shotgun after "Little Deuce Coupe" they be up a couple of places higher? At least they beat soddin' U2!

[/color][/color]

I agree with the Beatles, Led Zep, and definitely Bob Dylan, but jeesh, how the foder did Michael Jackson get on that list!? I mean, granted, grabbing your crotch and moonwalking at the same time during a concert is an amazing feat, but does that really warrant a place on the top 100 artists list?

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

Which band in my post are you responding to? The one that is still only remembered today because the singer shot himself, or the one that is kept in the papers because of it's frontman's "selfless contributions towards raising poverty awareness".  

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

Right on! I felt the same way when I read it. Especially the bit about Mike blowing himself away with a shotgun.
It's funny how upset people get over this kind of stuff. It's just somebody's opinion, it isn't like VH1 is the be-all end-all. Get a grip, people. Cripes.

Again I was just pointing out pretty much the only reason Nirvana are not just considered a footnote in early '90s music today. If you seriously read my post and interpreted it that I actually think Mike Love should shoot himself to shift a few more records than I suggest you have a break from your computer and have a nice liedown...........

[Awesoman]

Excuse my language but the 15th greatest artists of all time.


You have to be kidding me

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/08/exclusive-vh1-names-the-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-see-the-top-20/1

The Beach Boys aren't the greatest artists of all time.  There are artists that are more accomplished than them (such as the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, etc.).  To come in at 15 is pretty darn good.

[Awesoman]

Well, in my opinion, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Nirvana have no business in the top 20, but that's me. I'd like all of our over-caffeinated fans on this board to remember that this VH1 list is just ONE opinion.

And besides, I thought the 100 Greatest Albums in Rock 'n Roll list was simultaneously better and worse than this list. For one, Pet Sounds was #3, beating every other Beatles album on the list to that point. Nevermind was #2. Revolver was #1. I can dig Revolver as #1 since it is a poll that no doubt had the grubby mitts of Rolling Stone involved in its selection, but Nevermind at #2? THAT is batshit crazy.

Clearly rock & roll is not your thing.   

[Mike's Beard]

At least they're ahead of Wishbone Ash...

May this reference never grow tired. 

[drbeachboy]

Dylan? Composer, yes, artist, no. The guy could never sing a lick in my opinion. My dog howls prettier than he sings. From what I'm seeing here so far, is that performers who sing melodic songs tend to make the list. Songs with great melodies and the performers who sing them tend to be be remembered better. The songs and the sounds and the performances become etched in our memories.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

But, but ,but, but they're behind Nirvana?  WTF?  Maybe if Mike had blasted himself in the head with a shotgun after "Little Deuce Coupe" they be up a couple of places higher? At least they beat soddin' U2!

[/color][/color]

I agree with the Beatles, Led Zep, and definitely Bob Dylan, but jeesh, how the foder did Michael Jackson get on that list!? I mean, granted, grabbing your crotch and moonwalking at the same time during a concert is an amazing feat, but does that really warrant a place on the top 100 artists list?

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

Which band in my post are you responding to? The one that is still only remembered today because the singer shot himself, or the one that is kept in the papers because of it's frontman's "selfless contributions towards raising poverty awareness".   

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

Right on! I felt the same way when I read it. Especially the bit about Mike blowing himself away with a shotgun.
It's funny how upset people get over this kind of stuff. It's just somebody's opinion, it isn't like VH1 is the be-all end-all. Get a grip, people. Cripes.

Again I was just pointing out pretty much the only reason Nirvana are not just considered a footnote in early '90s music today. If you seriously read my post and interpreted it that I actually think Mike Love should shoot himself to shift a few more records than I suggest you have a break from your computer and have a nice liedown...........

No, Nirvana would not be a footnote if Cobain hadn't have died. I know most people on this board have a prejudice against anything recorded past the late 70s (if not earlier) but that is ridiculous.

[Pretty Funky]

Why is it that these lists get everyone so up tight? Its just a opinion. Right now the Stones, Beatles, Dylan boards are probably going right-on while the Pink Floyd, U2 ones are bitching how they were beat by the Beach Boys. Who gives a sh*t?

Made the list as No2 U.S band. Not shabby IMO.

Goddam filter. If I want to say merda, I'll say merda! If I want to say sh*t, I will.

[Awesoman]

It's not that complicated folks.  It's not a question of whether or not you *like* the artist, it is a matter of what they have accomplished.  The Beatles are among the most accomplished in modern music.  Their influence and impact on pop culture is incalculable.  Same goes for Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Marvin Gaye, etc.  Michael Jackson took the world by storm in the 80's with Thriller, and with the exception of *maybe* Elvis Presley, name me a single solo artist that achieved the world-wide fame he did.  I can't think of any other album where 7 of 9 tracks hit the top 10 charts.  That's nothing to scoff at.  Nirvana is up there because they completely changed the rules with Nevermind and jump-started alternative rock with that album.  

Sure, the Beach Boys are probably one of my favorite groups but I am not blindly devoted to them.  No one can deny the influence they have had in music and while I agree that they don't always get the credit they deserve, they are still not *the* best.  The group's career overall has been spotty; especially post-Pet Sounds.  But they're perhaps the most successful American band of all time, and making it to #15 is pretty good.

To flip this around, I'm a big fan of the group Chicago; love their early horn-infused albums.  They don't get the credit they deserve but I would hardly pair them with the bands listed in VH1's top 20. 

[Awesoman]

Dylan? Composer, yes, artist, no. The guy could never sing a lick in my opinion. My dog howls prettier than he sings. From what I'm seeing here so far, is that performers who sing melodic songs tend to make the list. Songs with great melodies and the performers who sing them tend to be be remembered better. The songs and the sounds and the performances become etched in our memories.

But it isn't about singing.  It's about the artist's overall impact on pop culture.

[absinthe_boy]

I first saw Oasis and Blur on the same late night TV programme circa 1993. I said to myself then, "Blur have more talent but Oasis will be more popular". I've never thought much Oasis....they are perhaps better than mediocre but much of their output is deravitave and not especially clever or entertaining.

To be honest I don't have many issues with VH1's list, however. Michael Jackson was very talented, not really my kind of music but I actually own and enjoy Thriller and Bad to some extent. He was a talented writer and one of the all time great performers/entertainers. For that he should be recognised.....though his songs themselves are rarely musically challanging that's not the point. Neither were Marvin Gaye's but he was a great.

Now....the stones....I really see what people are saying here. I've always preferred the Beatles over the Stones but I have many friends who would go the other way. At their very best the Stones were said to have the best live shows on the planet, and certainly they have continued to put out records better than Oasis' efforts for over 40 years - something even the Beach Boys haven't done. They also consistently still sell out huge tours, even after most people would have retired. The Stones have staying power and, though I haven't tried, I bet I could pick at least two songs from each and every one of their albums that I like. Never forget that it was the Stones who took little known black American blues records and made the music acceptbale (to white American audiences) and wildly popular. Their influence may be greater than you realise.

[Mike's Beard]

If Cobain were still alive today than Nirvana would be held in esteem no more really than Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Temple Pilots and Smashing Pumpkins etc.. (All bands that I liked growing up) Granted "Nevermind" would still very much be regarded as an iconic record from that era but it was only once Curt offed himself that suddenly everyone and his gran decided they were a Nirvana fan.

I notice you're not disputing my Bono comment.  

[Jason]

This is just one list. Make your own top 100 list to twiddle your knob/ring your doorbell to if you so wish.

The overall opinion dictates that the bands in the top 20 on this list are pretty much unshakable in the public's mind. Trying to argue the merits of the bands in that top 20, regardless of whether you like their music or not, is a futile endeavor.

[Runaways]

i love me some Oasis. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If Cobain were still alive today than Nirvana would be held in esteem no more really than Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Temple Pilots and Smashing Pumpkins etc.. (All bands that I liked growing up) Granted "Nevermind" would still very much be regarded as an iconic record from that era but it was only once Curt offed himself that suddenly everyone and his gran decided they were a Nirvana fan.

I notice you're not disputing my Bono comment.  

Nope...some of us were fans before Nevermind came out.

Bono annoys the hell out of me, and he's lost a lot of range in his voice, but U2 is in the HOF for a reason.  Not my favorite band by a long shot, but I'm not going to pretend  that there's no artistic merit or that they haven't had an overall impressive body of work.

Oddly enough, aside from Pearl Jam, the other bands were negatively compared to Nirvana back then, and that has only increased with the passing of time. Kind of upsets me to see STP listed above as they are my favorite non-BB group, but not going to pretend they are/were anything groundbreaking, just really good music.  

It's not that complicated folks.  It's not a question of whether or not you *like* the artist, it is a matter of what they have accomplished.  The Beatles are among the most accomplished in modern music.  Their influence and impact on pop culture is incalculable.  Same goes for Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Marvin Gaye, etc.  Michael Jackson took the world by storm in the 80's with Thriller, and with the exception of *maybe* Elvis Presley, name me a single solo artist that achieved the world-wide fame he did.  I can't think of any other album where 7 of 9 tracks hit the top 10 charts.  That's nothing to scoff at.  Nirvana is up there because they completely changed the rules with Nevermind and jump-started alternative rock with that album.  

Exactly. It's about impact.  But logic doesn't work with some people. I guaran-damn-tee someone read one of my posts and just shrugged it off with "typical  kid".

[drbeachboy]

Dylan? Composer, yes, artist, no. The guy could never sing a lick in my opinion. My dog howls prettier than he sings. From what I'm seeing here so far, is that performers who sing melodic songs tend to make the list. Songs with great melodies and the performers who sing them tend to be be remembered better. The songs and the sounds and the performances become etched in our memories.

But it isn't about singing.  It's about the artist's overall impact on pop culture.

That's why I said as a composer, yes.

[Mike's Beard]

If Cobain were still alive today than Nirvana would be held in esteem no more really than Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Temple Pilots and Smashing Pumpkins etc.. (All bands that I liked growing up) Granted "Nevermind" would still very much be regarded as an iconic record from that era but it was only once Curt offed himself that suddenly everyone and his gran decided they were a Nirvana fan.

I notice you're not disputing my Bono comment.  

Nope...some of us were fans before Nevermind came out.

Yeah, my older brother was big on them when Bleach was first knocking around, so I know they're out there.

Being as it's a VH1 poll I'm amazed there's no mention of The Eagles or Fleetwood Mac.  This is not the griping of some internet fanboy whose favourite group was missed out here- these are two of the biggest selling rock acts of the last 30 years. Infact between them don't they hold the #1 & #2 spot for biggest selling rock albums ever?

[HighOnLife]

I think Rolling Stone got it pretty much right a few years ago. They put the Boys at #12 and the list was pretty solid.

[Ron]

It's not that complicated folks.  It's not a question of whether or not you *like* the artist, it is a matter of what they have accomplished.  The Beatles are among the most accomplished in modern music.  Their influence and impact on pop culture is incalculable.  Same goes for Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Marvin Gaye, etc.  Michael Jackson took the world by storm in the 80's with Thriller, and with the exception of *maybe* Elvis Presley, name me a single solo artist that achieved the world-wide fame he did.  I can't think of any other album where 7 of 9 tracks hit the top 10 charts.  That's nothing to scoff at.  Nirvana is up there because they completely changed the rules with Nevermind and jump-started alternative rock with that album.  

Sure, the Beach Boys are probably one of my favorite groups but I am not blindly devoted to them.  No one can deny the influence they have had in music and while I agree that they don't always get the credit they deserve, they are still not *the* best.  The group's career overall has been spotty; especially post-Pet Sounds.  But they're perhaps the most successful American band of all time, and making it to #15 is pretty good.

To flip this around, I'm a big fan of the group Chicago; love their early horn-infused albums.  They don't get the credit they deserve but I would hardly pair them with the bands listed in VH1's top 20. 

Preach it brother.  And I was wondering; what the time is that is on your watch?

[Myk Luhv]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack. Of course, that is what VH1 and Rolling Stone do, so to complain about them doing the former and not the latter is to miss the point: it's the former they're concerned about.